If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
This Just In: American Trolls A Protected Species
"Anonymous trolls on the Internet are allowed to remain anonymous, a
judge in a California appeals court ruled yesterday. Not only that, but they're allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights and speak their minds, no matter how scathing their comments may be." http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...olls-too.html? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
This Just In: American Trolls A Protected Species
"My Conscience" > wrote in message
... > "Anonymous trolls on the Internet are allowed to remain anonymous, a judge > in a California appeals court ruled yesterday. Not only that, but they're > allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights and speak their minds, no > matter how scathing their comments may be." > > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...olls-too.html? There's nothing even remotely new about that, you stupid prick. You probably think this means these anonymous douchebags - like yourself - may legally say anything. That's not what "free speech" means, dumbass. Jeez, you just gotta love two-bit, low-life, amateur lawyers. The only thing "just in" is the penis in your rectum, and please don't put it in your mouth directly afterwards this time, OK? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
This Just In: American Trolls A Protected Species
Atlas Bugged wrote:
> "My Conscience" > wrote in message > ... >> "Anonymous trolls on the Internet are allowed to remain anonymous, a >> judge in a California appeals court ruled yesterday. Not only that, >> but they're allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights and >> speak their minds, no matter how scathing their comments may be." >> >> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...olls-too.html? > > There's nothing even remotely new about that, you stupid prick. > > You probably think this means these anonymous douchebags - like > yourself - may legally say anything. Most of them do think that. > That's not what "free speech" means, dumbass. > > Jeez, you just gotta love two-bit, low-life, amateur lawyers. ....who didn't bother to read the entire article. > The only thing "just in" is the penis in your rectum, and please > don't put it in your mouth directly afterwards this time, OK? lol How can you possibly object to anything Cujo posts? -- Rhonda Lea Kirk Miller's Law: In order to understand what another person is saying, you must assume that it is true and try to imagine what it could be true of. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
This Just In: American Trolls A Protected Species
Atlas Bugged wrote:
> "My Conscience" > wrote in message > ... >> "Anonymous trolls on the Internet are allowed to remain anonymous, a judge >> in a California appeals court ruled yesterday. Not only that, but they're >> allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights and speak their minds, no >> matter how scathing their comments may be." >> >> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...olls-too.html? > > There's nothing even remotely new about that, you stupid prick. Which is why an appeals court had to make a ruling on it. Didn't you claim you were some sort of super lawyer? I'd think you would know things like that if you were. > You probably think this means these anonymous douchebags - like yourself - > may legally say anything. I like how you say that as if you're not posting anonymously yourself. Oh, I see--you're a lying hypocrite. I guess you probably ARE a lawyer, then. > That's not what "free speech" means, dumbass. Jumping to unwarranted conclusions again? Don't you get tired of all those fallen arches? > Jeez, you just gotta love two-bit, low-life, amateur lawyers. I'm sure someone does love you, love being blind and all. > The only thing "just in" is the penis in your rectum, and please don't put > it in your mouth directly afterwards this time, OK? How much acid did you take to be having flashbacks this late in your life? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
This Just In: American Trolls A Protected Species
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
> Atlas Bugged wrote: >> "My Conscience" > wrote in message >> ... >>> "Anonymous trolls on the Internet are allowed to remain anonymous, a >>> judge in a California appeals court ruled yesterday. Not only that, >>> but they're allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights and >>> speak their minds, no matter how scathing their comments may be." >>> >>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...olls-too.html? >> There's nothing even remotely new about that, you stupid prick. >> >> You probably think this means these anonymous douchebags - like >> yourself - may legally say anything. > > Most of them do think that. Case in point. >> That's not what "free speech" means, dumbass. >> >> Jeez, you just gotta love two-bit, low-life, amateur lawyers. > > ...who didn't bother to read the entire article. Speak for yourself, Rhonda. You and Captain Hornblower both seem to think you know what conclusions I drew from the article. Do you both use the same methods of mind reading? >> The only thing "just in" is the penis in your rectum, and please >> don't put it in your mouth directly afterwards this time, OK? > > lol > > How can you possibly object to anything Cujo posts? > He's a hypocrite. Duh! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
This Just In: American Trolls A Protected Species
My Conscience wrote:
> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote: >> Atlas Bugged wrote: >>> "My Conscience" > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> "Anonymous trolls on the Internet are allowed to remain anonymous, >>>> a judge in a California appeals court ruled yesterday. Not only >>>> that, but they're allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights >>>> and speak their minds, no matter how scathing their comments may >>>> be." >>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...olls-too.html? >>> There's nothing even remotely new about that, you stupid prick. >>> >>> You probably think this means these anonymous douchebags - like >>> yourself - may legally say anything. >> >> Most of them do think that. > > Case in point. <sigh> >>> That's not what "free speech" means, dumbass. >>> >>> Jeez, you just gotta love two-bit, low-life, amateur lawyers. >> >> ...who didn't bother to read the entire article. > > Speak for yourself, Rhonda. You and Captain Hornblower both seem to > think you know what conclusions I drew from the article. Do you both > use the same methods of mind reading? You made clear the conclusion you drew by the portion of the article you chose to post. >>> The only thing "just in" is the penis in your rectum, and please >>> don't put it in your mouth directly afterwards this time, OK? >> >> lol >> >> How can you possibly object to anything Cujo posts? >> > > He's a hypocrite. Duh! I'm really sick of that word. It's useless to describe anything because it's either misused or overused. And I don't think it very well describes the situation I was asking about either. -- Rhonda Lea Kirk Miller's Law: In order to understand what another person is saying, you must assume that it is true and try to imagine what it could be true of. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
This Just In: American Trolls A Protected Species
My Conscience wrote:
> Atlas Bugged wrote: >> "My Conscience" > wrote in message >> ... >>> "Anonymous trolls on the Internet are allowed to remain anonymous, >>> a judge in a California appeals court ruled yesterday. Not only >>> that, but they're allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights >>> and speak their minds, no matter how scathing their comments may >>> be." >>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...olls-too.html? >> >> There's nothing even remotely new about that, you stupid prick. > > Which is why an appeals court had to make a ruling on it. The appeals court had to make a ruling on it because someone appealed the judgment of the lower court. Happens all the time. > Didn't you > claim you were some sort of super lawyer? I'd think you would know > things like that if you were. Don't give up your day job, Mr. Usenet Lawyer. >> You probably think this means these anonymous douchebags - like >> yourself - may legally say anything. > > I like how you say that as if you're not posting anonymously yourself. > Oh, I see--you're a lying hypocrite. I guess you probably ARE a > lawyer, then. You love that word, don't you? Do you think there might be some projection going on? >> That's not what "free speech" means, dumbass. > > Jumping to unwarranted conclusions again? Don't you get tired of all > those fallen arches? Hyuck, hyuck, hyuck. >> Jeez, you just gotta love two-bit, low-life, amateur lawyers. > > I'm sure someone does love you, love being blind and all. > >> The only thing "just in" is the penis in your rectum, and please >> don't put it in your mouth directly afterwards this time, OK? > > How much acid did you take to be having flashbacks this late in your > life? -- Rhonda Lea Kirk Miller's Law: In order to understand what another person is saying, you must assume that it is true and try to imagine what it could be true of. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
This Just In: American Trolls A Protected Species
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:09:40 -0500, Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>> Didn't you >> claim you were some sort of super lawyer? I'd think you would know >> things like that if you were. > > Don't give up your day job, Mr. Usenet Lawyer. > >>> You probably think this means these anonymous douchebags - like >>> yourself - may legally say anything. >> >> I like how you say that as if you're not posting anonymously yourself. >> Oh, I see--you're a lying hypocrite. I guess you probably ARE a >> lawyer, then. > > You love that word, don't you? Douchebag? Nah..... OK. Which one, hypocrite or lawyer? They're virtually synonymous. -- Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking. -John Maynard Keynes, economist (1883-1946) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
This Just In: American Trolls A Protected Species
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
> My Conscience wrote: >> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote: >>> Atlas Bugged wrote: >>>> "My Conscience" > wrote in message >>>> ... >>>>> "Anonymous trolls on the Internet are allowed to remain anonymous, >>>>> a judge in a California appeals court ruled yesterday. Not only >>>>> that, but they're allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights >>>>> and speak their minds, no matter how scathing their comments may >>>>> be." >>>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...olls-too.html? >>>> There's nothing even remotely new about that, you stupid prick. >>>> >>>> You probably think this means these anonymous douchebags - like >>>> yourself - may legally say anything. >>> Most of them do think that. >> Case in point. > > <sigh> Well, I must say, that was a pretty short stay in your bit bucket. >>>> That's not what "free speech" means, dumbass. >>>> >>>> Jeez, you just gotta love two-bit, low-life, amateur lawyers. >>> ...who didn't bother to read the entire article. >> Speak for yourself, Rhonda. You and Captain Hornblower both seem to >> think you know what conclusions I drew from the article. Do you both >> use the same methods of mind reading? > > You made clear the conclusion you drew by the portion of the article you > chose to post. That anonymous speech is protected, even when it is abrasive? Of course. Expanding that to "all speech is protected" as Atlas tried to do was a blatantly obvious invalid assumption, so your seconding it is puzzling. Well, not all that puzzling, come to think of it. >>>> The only thing "just in" is the penis in your rectum, and please >>>> don't put it in your mouth directly afterwards this time, OK? >>> lol >>> >>> How can you possibly object to anything Cujo posts? >>> >> He's a hypocrite. Duh! > > I'm really sick of that word. Sorry to hear that. > It's useless to describe anything because > it's either misused or overused. So is "less," these days. Are you sick of that, too? > And I don't think it very well describes the situation I was asking > about either. > Explain why not. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
This Just In: American Trolls A Protected Species
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
> My Conscience wrote: >> Atlas Bugged wrote: >>> "My Conscience" > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> "Anonymous trolls on the Internet are allowed to remain anonymous, >>>> a judge in a California appeals court ruled yesterday. Not only >>>> that, but they're allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights >>>> and speak their minds, no matter how scathing their comments may >>>> be." >>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...olls-too.html? >>> There's nothing even remotely new about that, you stupid prick. >> Which is why an appeals court had to make a ruling on it. > > The appeals court had to make a ruling on it because someone appealed > the judgment of the lower court. Well, duh. That's kind of my point, e.g. that they did so NOW. It's not as old newsy as Atlas implied. > Happens all the time. > >> Didn't you >> claim you were some sort of super lawyer? I'd think you would know >> things like that if you were. > > Don't give up your day job, Mr. Usenet Lawyer. I hear there are some openings in Mr. Anonymous But Famous And Successful Lawyer's firm. I think I'd fit in well to all of them. >>> You probably think this means these anonymous douchebags - like >>> yourself - may legally say anything. >> I like how you say that as if you're not posting anonymously yourself. >> Oh, I see--you're a lying hypocrite. I guess you probably ARE a >> lawyer, then. > > You love that word, don't you? Which one? > Do you think there might be some > projection going on? Nope. >>> That's not what "free speech" means, dumbass. >> Jumping to unwarranted conclusions again? Don't you get tired of all >> those fallen arches? > > Hyuck, hyuck, hyuck. Thanks. >>> Jeez, you just gotta love two-bit, low-life, amateur lawyers. >> I'm sure someone does love you, love being blind and all. >> >>> The only thing "just in" is the penis in your rectum, and please >>> don't put it in your mouth directly afterwards this time, OK? >> How much acid did you take to be having flashbacks this late in your >> life? > |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Route 66 motels an endangered species | me | Driving | 2 | May 24th 07 04:28 AM |
Route 66 motels an endangered species | Rothman | Driving | 2 | May 23rd 07 10:47 PM |
Route 66 motels an endangered species | Rothman | Driving | 0 | May 23rd 07 06:54 PM |
Route 66 motels an endangered species | me | Driving | 0 | May 23rd 07 06:39 PM |